Forums | MacLife

sturner · 2009-10-11 5:43 pm

It just goes to show you how even when things change, they stay the same. The M16 received criticism like this when first introduced, and a change was made. The critical thing about the M16 and it's derivative line of weapons is that the tolerances are very tight, and cleaning and lubrication must be done. Failure to take care of the weapon in this manner will result in a failure during a firefight.

The difference in design philosophy between the M16 family of weapons and the Russian AK-47 is monumental. Even the PPsh submachinegun followed this dictum. The Russian weapons were designed with the conditions of combat and behavior of the soldier in mind, as well as cost effectiveness. Thus, the PPsh was made with tolerances so loose that the rate of fire actually increased in the field during combat, as dirt and fouling tightened up the tolerances of the weapon.

The AK-47 is made the same way. Just tight enough. The design assumed that the user would be an illiterate peasant who had little self-discipline and would clean the weapon haphazardly. Thus the failure rate of the AK-47 is less than that of the M16 family.

The M4 is still a good, reliable weapon. You just have to treat it as specified.

Graphic Autist · 2009-10-11 6:10 pm

I was shocked at how small the bullets for the M16 are when I first fired one.

Never fired an AK-47.

sturner · 2009-10-11 6:19 pm

The AK-47 is 7.62x39mm. Which means that the cartridge length is shorter than the 7.62x51mm NATO. The M16 and M4 families fire the 5.56x45mm NATO

jerwin · 2009-10-11 6:45 pm

How accurate is the ak47?

RatFink · 2009-10-11 7:26 pm

The biggest problem with the M16 is that it vents the gases from the fired cartriges directly into the mechanism causing it to foul very fast and jam. Tolerances have little to do with that.

sturner · 2009-10-11 7:28 pm

And that is different from other blowback systems?

sturner · 2009-10-11 7:31 pm

AK-47 is an assault rifle. It's effective range is 100–800 meters, with normal engagement within 300 meters. It was designed to fit into the combat range environment of 0 to 300 meters, specifically intended for the final assault and within built-up or fortified areas, thus the automatic capability. Thus the designation of assault rifle.

ShnickyShnack · 2009-10-11 7:33 pm

Why is this in MiniThink?

sturner · 2009-10-11 7:36 pm

Because of the potential political flap over "our troops don't have the best weapons", and "our troops have defective weapons."

The initial link suggests that as well. Seems not one is interested in that, but are interested in the technical aspects of the two opposing weapons systems.

RatFink · 2009-10-11 7:38 pm

jerwin wrote:
How accurate is the ak47?

In fully auto, not bad (for an automatic) to terible depending on the condition and quality of the gun. The round has a bit of a kick and the bolt moves quite a bit.

In single shot mode, I know a lot of people that love it and hunt with it and SKSs chambered for the same round.

For people on the imperial system 7.62mm = .30cal 5.56mm = .22cal

user · 2009-10-11 7:42 pm

What about the perennial debate over the gun?

Last edited by user (2009-10-11 7:42 pm)

RatFink · 2009-10-11 7:47 pm

sturner wrote:
And that is different from other blowback systems?

Neither use blowback, they are both gas operated. The bolt is stationary until a vent in the barel lets some of the gas from the round unlock and push back the bolt. The AK uses a contained piston in a chamber. The M16 feeds the gas directly into the breech. The AK fouling is limited to the piston chamber, something that isn't as prone to jamming. The M16 on the otherhad has to deal with fouling in the breech on the bolt and can get pretty much anywhere from there.

Tallgeese · 2009-10-11 7:50 pm

THE M16 IS A PEICE OF smurf MATTEL TOY AND THE AK47 CAN FIRE AFTER BEING BURIED ON THE SEAFLOOR FOR 10 YEARS BUT THE M16 JAMS IF YOU GET IT WET.

Tallgeese · 2009-10-11 7:52 pm

RatFink wrote:
jerwin wrote:
How accurate is the ak47?
In fully auto, not bad (for an automatic) to terible depending on the condition and quality of the gun. The round has a bit of a kick and the bolt moves quite a bit.

In single shot mode, I know a lot of people that love it and hunt with it and SKSs chambered for the same round.

For people on the imperial system 7.62mm = .30cal 5.56mm = .22cal

.223 but who's counting...

jerwin · 2009-10-11 7:55 pm

user wrote:
What about the perennial debate over the gun?

THIS IS MY RIFLE
THIS IS MY GUN
THIS IS FOR FIGHTING
THIS IS FOR FUN

sing it loud, sing it proud

sturner · 2009-10-11 7:56 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
THE M16 IS A PEICE OF smurf MATTEL TOY AND THE AK47 CAN FIRE AFTER BEING BURIED ON THE SEAFLOOR FOR 10 YEARS BUT THE M16 JAMS IF YOU GET IT WET.

WHICH IS THE SAME ARGUMENT USED IN THE 60'S.

Sorry about the Caps Lock.

The same rebuttal exists.

Tallgeese · 2009-10-11 7:59 pm

sturner wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
THE M16 IS A PEICE OF smurf MATTEL TOY AND THE AK47 CAN FIRE AFTER BEING BURIED ON THE SEAFLOOR FOR 10 YEARS BUT THE M16 JAMS IF YOU GET IT WET.
WHICH IS THE SAME ARGUMENT USED IN THE 60'S.

Sorry about the Caps Lock.

The same rebuttal exists.

Hey, if you're going to have the perennial debate over the rifle, you gotta have that line in there somewhere.

RatFink · 2009-10-11 8:04 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
THE M16 IS A PEICE OF smurf MATTEL TOY AND THE AK47 CAN FIRE AFTER BEING BURIED ON THE SEAFLOOR FOR 10 YEARS BUT THE M16 JAMS IF YOU GET IT WET.

If they only picked the alternative:

dv · 2009-10-11 9:25 pm

sturner wrote:
It just goes to show you how even when things change, they stay the same. The M16 received criticism like this when first introduced, and a change was made. The critical thing about the M16 and it's derivative line of weapons is that the tolerances are very tight, and cleaning and lubrication must be done. Failure to take care of the weapon in this manner will result in a failure during a firefight.

The article said they overheated, not fouled. confused

ShnickyShnack · 2009-10-11 10:41 pm

RatFink wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
THE M16 IS A PEICE OF smurf MATTEL TOY AND THE AK47 CAN FIRE AFTER BEING BURIED ON THE SEAFLOOR FOR 10 YEARS BUT THE M16 JAMS IF YOU GET IT WET.
If they only picked the alternative:
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j96/L … ainsaw.jpg

I'll do ya one better:

resedit · 2009-10-11 10:57 pm

Out of curiosity - how many insurgents were killed when our 8 soldiers were killed?

this is not, btw, an attempt to say our weapons couldn't use improvement. If they have a tendency to jam, they obviously do need to be improved. I am though curious if the tighter tolerances make them a better firearm in general despite tendency to jam.

jerwin · 2009-10-11 11:11 pm

The four-hour firefight finally ended when American warplanes and attack helicopters strafed insurgent positions. The paratroopers drove back the insurgents, but ended up abandoning the village 48 hours later.

Report Cites Firefight as Lesson on Afghan War

DevoDoc · 2009-10-12 12:30 am

FWIW, my father served in the army in Vietnam. He says that the M16 was good for killing one NVA soldier so you could take his AK-47.

ShnickyShnack · 2009-10-12 12:51 am

Funny thing, I remember reading that jamming was a major issue with the '16 in the early days of its deployment (in Vietnam), but I thought they figured that all that was necessary was to clean them regularly.

elpato84 · 2009-10-12 2:04 am

ShnickyShnack wrote:
RatFink wrote:
Tallgeese wrote:
THE M16 IS A PEICE OF smurf MATTEL TOY AND THE AK47 CAN FIRE AFTER BEING BURIED ON THE SEAFLOOR FOR 10 YEARS BUT THE M16 JAMS IF YOU GET IT WET.
If they only picked the alternative:
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j96/L … ainsaw.jpg
I'll do ya one better:

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7082/pulserifle.jpg

ACTUALLY
That's just a shotgun duct-taped to a tommy gun.
nerd

Forums | MacLife

#1 2009-10-11 5:43 pm

The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#2 2009-10-11 6:10 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#3 2009-10-11 6:19 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#4 2009-10-11 6:45 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#5 2009-10-11 7:26 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#6 2009-10-11 7:28 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#7 2009-10-11 7:31 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#8 2009-10-11 7:33 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#9 2009-10-11 7:36 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#10 2009-10-11 7:38 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

jerwin wrote:

#11 2009-10-11 7:42 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#12 2009-10-11 7:47 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

sturner wrote:

#13 2009-10-11 7:50 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#14 2009-10-11 7:52 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

RatFink wrote:

jerwin wrote:

#15 2009-10-11 7:55 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

user wrote:

#16 2009-10-11 7:56 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

Tallgeese wrote:

#17 2009-10-11 7:59 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

sturner wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

#18 2009-10-11 8:04 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

Tallgeese wrote:

#19 2009-10-11 9:25 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

sturner wrote:

#20 2009-10-11 10:41 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

RatFink wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

#21 2009-10-11 10:57 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#22 2009-10-11 11:11 pm

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#23 2009-10-12 12:30 am

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#24 2009-10-12 12:51 am

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

#25 2009-10-12 2:04 am

Re: The Perennial Debate over the rifle

ShnickyShnack wrote:

RatFink wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Board footer